Your video, Angry Man Threatens To Call ICE On Women Speaking Spanish, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

20 years is a gift. Normal citizens would get longer sentences for the same crimes, but since they used their authority to rob and abuse citizens, they get a break? That's totally backwards, using that authority should, imo, double any normal sentence. They should all get life, but I think they likely got death...I think there's zero chance they will last 10 years in prison...even in protective custody. They robbed hundreds if not thousands of people. There's certainly a high price on all their heads and plenty of inmates just itching to collect it....deservedly so.

I hope they are all fined into destitution too. Anything they own, or their immediate family owns is paid for with stolen money. Find out their net worth, then set restitution at double that, just in case they've hidden money somewhere. Do not allow the family to benefit from their crimes.

Drag them over the coals, they deserve nothing less, including angry man's brother who was part of the gang, didn't leave the group, did help Rob citizens, and didn't turn them in.

Isn't Leary's whole shtick that he's really just a lucky asshole?

He's in character. He typically gets humbled (owned) in his comedic acts; he's the every man's angry man that needs the humbling experiences to grow rather than be destoyed by hubris.

I've never seen him as the type who competes, rather he reacts with the inhibitions of an angry drunk tellIing it lIke it is. It's difficult for me to see the difference between him being Dennis Leary for real and him being Dennis Leary in his acts. You always get the feeling he is implicitly telling his jokes from the underdog's perspective. He was just wrong about a fact, except he's a comedian, so being owned while in character is the riposte and payoff for the act. Greg's stare down ONLY works because it's against Leary. Two man bit. Three man with Colin's visual gag. (It's like the Marx Bros.)

They both win at comedy, but Greg wins at facts.

You don't need to link any angry man-hating feminist videos, and I don't need to link any angry woman-hating videos by people calling themselves humanists while threatening Anita Sarkeesian's life. We both know that they exist, and should ideally agree that this doesn't mean most self-labelled feminists hate men and most self-labelled humanists don't hate women. In fact, the vast majority of feminists and humanists don't even make angry videos on the internet.

Then you go into statistics on rape by men against women outside of prison and rape by men against in prison. This is a fucking horrible cultural phenomenon, and I discussed that. Above. You saw it? Yeah you did. But you wanted to make pretend rape threats instead, which fine, that's your deal, I guess. Nevertheless I can quote myself, again:

"if we concede that there's a pervasive and destructive culture of rape of women by men outside of prison, I will also concede that there's a pervasive and destructive culture of rape of men by men in prison. In fact, I'll go ahead and concede that anyway. Which is fucking awful, but doesn't mean that feminists are wrong for railing against the situation outside of prison."

Furthermore - I gave you some quotes specifically showing you good sources of arguments. Not examplesof things men should tolerate or be fine about it. Quite the opposite, in fact. Don't pretend that I said that men should be fine with rape, because I never did. I said that just as white people have the privilege to shrug off inflammatory comments by BLM activists while still respecting the underlying movement, men have the privilege to be able to shrug off some inflammatory comments by feminist activists while still respecting the underlying movement. I am a little surprised that you responded with "I should have some people rape the fuck out of you" but okay, that's how you roll. If you don't want to go back on that comment - we'll just let it stand on its own, I guess.

As for Nicholas Cristakis in the video you link to, there's a shitload to discuss there, but it's much more nuanced and weird than feminism vs whatever.

- There's the weirdness of the role of a 'Master' and what it has come to mean at Yale. While I think the students are being unbearably unbearable, it would be a little different if they did it to a teacher rather than a master, who has a sort of weird guidance counsellor / therapist role. I don't know why that role needs to exist, or what it means in practice normally.
- There's the absolute insufferable pampered entitled gall and rudeness of those students which makes my goddamn blood boil.
- There's the question of racism and cultural appropriation at halloween (which started the whole thing) which to me is both a silly and difficult debate; I'm absolutely disguested by blackface, but I don't really mind if some four-year old white or black or hispanic girl wants to dress up as Mulan.
- There's the issue of job security in the academic world and what kind of protection Christakis has from fallout over a perfectly reasonable letter his wife wrote...

Those are all interesting, I agree, but I don't see what the video has to do with this one.

It makes a better counterpoint than silly, misrepresented, just plain wrong 'bullet points'....and was followed with more.
The argument is not worth linking the dozen recent angry man hating feminist videos...you wouldn't see the ridiculousness anyway.

No, you're wrong about what you said (or didn't say)....here's the proof you require.
In that same post where you wrote '"We can take it...we don't need a safe space", you said "Also, please don't say that men suffer from most or all of the opression that women suffer, as much or to a greater degree, without sources. I'll give you some examples of what you could have done:
•Women suffer from sexual violence at much greater rates than men (Example source: some man-hating bull dyke known as the CDC, "Sexual violence facts at a glance, 2012")"

Which, as you KNOW, just plain ignores MOST sexual assaults perpetrated on men and pretends they aren't victims in order to make a mistaken point....that men aren't victims, only women are, when the reality is that men are the victim of sexual abuse MORE often than women.

The two certainly seemed related when you wrote them together.

EDIT: How about this guy (the teacher, not the douche narrator)? Doesn't HE need a safe space? Note: 16 men and 9 women in the group attacking the teacher...it's not just women putting this crap out.
http://videosift.com/video/secondclancy-the-new-face-of-social-justice-warriors#comments

Now go back, admit your mistake. I can take on insult AND disgusting lies, but not at the same time.

Proper format does not a correct argument make.

Hmmm, if you watch the beginning carefully the guy he attacked was filming him without his permission. The angry guy asks him to stop, and the man tells him, "I'm not going to stop." The angry man calls the man a homosexual because he's filming him without his consent, and then attacks him. But he does not attack the man simply because he thinks he's homosexual.

I like how the placeholder image is supposed to be menacing. Some angry man in the darkness waiting to attack you. However it's words he's attacking you with.

A drunk walks into an upscale pub and, after a while, leans up against the bar.
"A snifter of Louis XIII," he slurs and drops three $100 bills on the bar.
The bartender, taken aback for a moment, looks the disheveled man up and down.
"Big spender!" the bartender says, pouring his drink.
"Life is good," the drunk replies, and promptly tosses back the cognac.
The bartender takes a second look at the man; his hair is a mess and his suit hasn't seen a dry cleaner in a while, and he swears the man smells faintly of urine. Hardly someone who can afford such a fine cognac.
"Inheritance?" the bartender presses.
The man looks up.
"No, no...I bet people. And I always win," the drunk smirks.
"What do you mean always?" the bartender asks.
The drunk takes a moment and looks around the bar.
"Here. You see that glass over there?" He points to a an empty mug of beer at the end of the bar, 20 feet away. "I'll bet you $100 I can piss in it from here."
Impossible! the bartender thinks. "You're on," the bartender says, shaking the drunk's hand (and quickly wiping it off on his apron).
Unsteadily, the drunk climbs up on top of the bar, pulls his dick out and begins peeing everywhere. He stumbles and steps in his own piss, causing him to slip and he plummets off the bar. The bartender looks over the railing and sees the man lying flat on his back, hands flailing, as his piss arcs up into the air and hits him directly in the face. The bartender erupts with laughter at the comical sight, slapping his hand on the bar in triumph.
Suddenly, across the room, a man shouts in anger and rushes the bar. "Are you fucking kidding me?!" he screams.
Surprised, the bartender says "What?! What?"
The angry man points down at the drunk and yells, "He just bet me a thousand dollars that he could piss all over your bar and you'd laugh about it!"

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

>> ^Mammaltron:

Sure, nationalise/steal those privately-owned golf courses and build ghettos on them, should work out fine.
Solutions to complex social problems which begin with some variant of "they should just..." should just be ignored.


Of course they should, If he were to go into fine and great detail about what they should do to fix XYZ issue, it wouldn't be funny anymore. Pretty sure Carlin doesn't believe what he's saying all of the time, a lot of it is definitely the rantings of an angry man

This is about as angry as I get when I think about the ongoing looting of the American treasury by Wall Street.

Kudos, angry man. Kudos.

Angry. Angry man.

@Ryjkyj

I understand your viewpoint, but can you find one video news story about this cop's death? If you look on the memorial page for him here, it seems many people had no idea about this guy's life or death until this video surfaced. And we (or rather, @lucky760) discarded it.

I'm usually the first person to call snuff, but for me, the key factor in this is that this was not posted nor filmed for entertainment purposes. @Lawdeedaw clearly had multiple reasons for posting this (as he's already explained) concerning attitudes on the Sift towards police officers, the 2nd amendment, the sale of assault rifles, etc. I think this is exactly the kind of video that should be allowable. On the other hand, this one where someone died off-camera most definitely deserved being discarded. If you look at the posts you can see people basically laughing at the last seconds of this guy's life (mostly because they didn't realize he had died). I don't think that's the kind of community the Sift is trying to build.

I wish the Sift had had more time to discuss Lawdeedaw's vid before it got booted (though I suspect in the end it still would have been discarded).

>> ^bmacs27:

How do you arrest that which has no arms?


Call in the army?


Sorry.

Here in Portland , Oregon , the police would just shoot him like everyone else.

>> ^bmacs27:
How do you arrest that which has no arms?